Nationalism

By Dr Bruce Haddock

new perspective Vol 4,  No 1

Nationalism as a political force emerged on the European scene with the French Revolution. We find nationalists aligned on both sides in the revolutionary struggles and wars of 1789-1815. But no matter what constitutional form nationalists might favour, they occupy common ground in their insistence that the identity of the nation confers value upon the State. In terms of its capacity to mobilise populations, nationalism is clearly the most effective of our modern ideologies. Taking the longer view of modern European history, it may be that the spectra of the French nation at arms will loom larger in significance than the specific goals the revolutionary armies were pursuing.

The roots of nationalism, however, should be sought beyond the sphere of politics. It had initially emerged in the eighteenth century as a reaction against the predominance of French culture in the literary world. In the minds of most intellectuals France and the Enlightenment had been identified as the acme of civilisation and refinement. Yet to critics such as Herder (1744-1803), French cultural supremacy was viewed as intellectually and morally ruinous. Enlightenment thinkers had tended to adopt an abstract, generalising vocabulary, blind to the subtle distinctions and nuances embedded in local cultural traditions. What made matters worse was that German or Italian or Czech writers were being encouraged to couch their work in an idiom and style which derived essentially from France. Peoples were being alienated from their roots. The only way to halt the decline was to foster local cultures. In the view of most nationalists, it was language, above all, that distinguished national cultural units. Individuals identified with their language at the most basic level. A cultural or political programme which countenanced neglect of so much that was important to them ran the risk of moral and intellectual atrophy.

A concern with roots and identity became a leading theme in nineteenth-century nationalist writings. The stress was on cultural diversity, language, shared myths and traditions rather than on specifically political categories. What transformed nationalism into a political movement was the reaction against the attempt to return to a system of dynastic politics in 1815. Peoples had grown accustomed to new styles of political thought and practice and new loyalties had emerged. Problems were most acute within the sprawling Austrian Empire. Educated Slavs, Hungarians or Italians simply could not identify with rule from Vienna. Within these suppressed nations (for that is how they began to regard themselves) movements arose with a very clear political objective - to rid the nation of foreign rule. The ideal of national self-government was thrust to the forefront of political debate, with the question of the kind of constitutional arrangement which might be appropriate for a community being treated as a secondary issue.

The most striking representative of this new style of nationalism was Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-72). His nationalism had a specifically political focus. Yet he shared many of the assumptions which had informed Herder’s view. He rejected abstract ‘scientific’ analysis of history and society, focusing instead on identification with the non-reflective attitudes and dispositions which are the foundation of a way of life. What mattered to him was not so much that individuals should be enabled to pursue their particular interests but that they should be aware of the ties which bound them to their communities.

Nationalism assumed the guise of a liberation movement in response to the challenge of imperial rule. As a political movement, however, it embraced a variety of positions, ranging from radical claims for direct democracy to defence of the most extreme forms of authoritarianism. This flexibility, of course, was essential to the appeal of the movement. Nationalists could set their ideological or constitutional differences aside in a common commitment to the contention that communities with a sense of their own linguistic or cultural identity should have a political voice. Here were tantalising possibilities for established authorities. Through identification with the State as a symbol of the nation, a sense of political participation could be attained without any real extension of popular involvement in government. Nationalism could thus generate from within its own resources a remarkable transfiguration from an ideology of liberation to the official doctrine of a repressive state.

There had, indeed, always been a darker side to the history of nationalism. Fichte (1762-1814), for example, saw the nation in such exclusive terms that a national state would be justified in pressing its claims not only against other states but against dissenting voices amongst its own people. The bond between people who spoke a common language was regarded as so crucial to their fulfilment that nothing could be allowed to distract them from their sense of common purpose. With the leaven of social Darwinism later in the century, these ideas would warrant the most aggressive policies. Nations could be pictured maximising their moral and political energies in competition with one another, with individuals subordinating their interests, and sometimes their lives, to the pursuit of a common good. Once the interests of the State had been identified with the needs of the nation, it was but a small step from a view of a world of diverse nations, each finding a political outlet for their energies, to that of a world in which a nation is justified in asserting itself against other nations. What had originally been conceived as a recipe for international harmony and co-operation could be transformed into a pretext for imperial adventures and war.